washington -- george mason university talks about federal halfway houses. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] good morning, and welcome to "washington journal." in four briefnly pro forma session. the members are out of washington for the easter and passover holiday. down the street people are lining up in front of the supreme court, despite the weather, in hopes of watching tomorrows oral arguments over same-sex marriage. the editorial pages are asking whether non-5 lead to illegal immigrants should be detained. what you think should happen to be legal tender in the united states illegally? this stems from the release of

more than 2000 detainees because of sequestration budget cuts. here are the numbers to call -- republicans 202-585-3881. .ou can also find us online or joined theet conversation on facebook. you can also e-mail us journal@cspan.org. here is the editorial in "the la times." this is a commentary piece by the editorial board.

what is certain is that those that were released did not pose an egregious threat to public safety. more than 70 percent of those detainees have no criminal history, according to federal officials. the rest, with the exception of 10 immigrants, had only misdemeanor convictions including shoplifting and minor drug possession the l.a. times says -- we saw this story brick a couple of weeks ago. ap the first to get the hard numbers. they had an exclusive story saying that b.a. just released over 2000 immigrants, people facing deportation. the reason homeland security gave them was because of looming budget cuts. said they plan to release

thousands more. the government documents show that immigrants released about 1000 illegal immigrants from jails around the u.s. each week in the past two weeks of february. when that happens, there were different reactions. gov. rick perry of texas weighed in on this. this is a story from a local texas paper. it said he joined the chorus of republicans expressing criticism for the decision to release the immigrant detainees. we are asking you this morning, should be illegal immigrants be detained at all? is asking that question.

here are the numbers. an average of $122-$164 per day to detain immigrants in federal custody bridget custody. alternatives such as supervised release or electronic monitoring carrying an average price tag of $14 per day. more than 95 percent of immigrants to show up for their final court hearing according to human rights first. let's hear what you have to say this morning. john, raleigh, north carolina, republican. isller: this administration or is trying to score political points.

the released 12 bosch -- 12 high-risk level 1 offenders. to thetom line gets back rule of law. i do not know about you, but here in raleigh, when you pull local wal-mart and see a police officer's car in their in front it is usually a shoplifter. that shoplifter gets handcuffed. taken down. if they makew, bail they are released on bail, and then they appear for their court date. well, a lot of people make points about the low-level offenders of the illegal immigrants, but the bottom line is once they crossed the border, they have crossed a sovereign line of the united states willingly. unless they were kidnapped from mexico or whatever other country they're coming from.

therefore, they break the law straight off the bat. i would a foreign them -- afford them the human rights dignities of not being treated bill, but at the same time, they break the law. reated ill. t holding everyone to the letter of the law, but that all of a sudden we make somewhat of a lighter standard for folks who were not even a sovereign citizens, i find it ironic. that is where we're supposed to be going if we are progressive in this country because we are not -- we are world without borders. it is just totally out of character for any kind of country that wants to live by the rule of law and also, have its own sovereignty. take a let's hear from the view were spirited -- >> let's hear

viewers. ice sh exchange with of department head. story. connected to the our calller talked about what he thought should happen to non- violent illegal immigrants. asking jan and alabama. what do you think? caller: i agree with the previous calller. i do not think there should be a standard for a u.s. citizen and a different standard for someone who is not even a u.s. citizen and has crossed the border illegally. my husband is an immigrant. i went through the entire application for getting him legal status.

a technicality got him detained. he was detained for three months. it took me that long to make bail. i understand what they're trying to do. i abide them for upholding the law because they did not have all the criteria. host: let me make sure i am understanding this right. for you married at the time? when he was detained for three months? but you think it was the right thing to do? caller: i do not think it was the right thing to do to detain him for three months, but i do think he should have -- they him post a made bond, which he did -- i posted a cash bond and went to court to appear, but he should not have

been detained for three months. i do disagree with detaining someone without just cause. my attorney said -- one might attorney said he is not a citizen and has the rights as a citizen, therefore, under the law they can detain him. we had to go before a federal judge for him to make a decision as to whether or not he could be released. he had to go to the sound backtracks -- bad checks to make was bought a terrorist or anything. >> we saw this editorial piece. they make a case for saving money. instead of course rating -- incarcerating, supervised release system or more of an honor code. you think that is appropriate? caller: i still pinkish should

be a monetary bond. and i do not think even when you put a freeze put on someone you have to have someone spend money to monitor them to make sure they do not leave. the cash bond hypertexts the united states and the system. if adults show up, at least they have the money there. for theow are things two of you now? took usyes, but it three years. the process was so inefficient. they lost his records. that was part of the original reason he was detained. they did not print all the paperwork, even though i did. i had to go back to the original -- he was here on a valid work recess. the u.s. government was so inefficient in the way they ran things that they were not able to gather all that information adequately enough to show he

was here legally. so we had to go through it -- i had to hire an attorney and cost about $3,000. was anotherd, which cash money. it is just the fact that the government was so inefficient in the way they did things and process things. if it had not been for a very good attorney that i have that was really working on the case and for one government working, case aheado put his of time when i explained what was going on. it was just a piece of paper that technically the government did not have in the file to show he was here legally. it was then all for naught. it was very irritating. i tried to get my senator to help with the case.

there is such a backlog. there is still such a backlog today and inefficient. they have to come up with other ways to process these illegal immigrants, even if they do come up with a proper way to get them into the country. shouldughly believe they go through the law -- the proper legal steps and not give them amnesty. >> thank you for sharing your experience. charles in new york. caller: hello. good morning. i would like to say a few things. many of these immigrants are working, doing things that many americans do not want to do. they had predicted congress held a meeting about it. stephencalller -- colbert was there. the prisons are profiting off

of this incarcerations. the prisons are now privatized. you have to be very careful about the profits being made off of incarceration in this country. host: thank you for sharing your thoughts. here is the pole on our facebook page. we're looking at whether or not non-violent immigrants should be detained. comments that have come in felone kirk who says any should be detained and prosecuted. amy says they should not be detained but should have to take the necessary steps to become a u.s. citizen and become a productive member of society. ralph is an ohio. republican. caller: as think one of these times some of us could walk across the border and will be carrying a suitcase bomb, nuclear maybe, and then someone will have to act on it.

i think the so-called gang of eight are not going to do nothing because the republican party is switching the menu around and are going to go out to the votes. that is the only reason there to try to do this. i volunteered with -- but two state senators and ohio. portman and the other one. the democrat senator. senator brown? caller: with no answer given to me. all they're going to do is go after the votes. that is all they care about corbin said the gang of eight will do nothing but go after boats. they will get kind of an amnesty. they should never give them amnesty. they are breaking the law. we get them 1.5 million-2 million people who come across legally every year. isn't that enough?

that is all i have to say. thank you. host: joe in maryland. caller: think you for taking my call. historically whenever there are economic issues with this country, it always comes back to immigrants. whether it would have been the chinese or irish -- anyone who might have been an immigrant during economic hardships would for thed -- guilted inability to handle this peered at the true things driving the country and to some serious potential issues are health care-related and defense- related. those are the biggest items on the budget. as far as immigrants are concerned, i was not born here and came to this country. i have enormous respect for

people who come to try to make a living here. like the second to last calller said, a lot of people are unwilling to do these jobs. immigrants are willing to work really hard. joe, how has your experience turned out? caller: i went through the process. took me a very long time to become a u.s. citizen. a naturalized in court. married and contributing to society in the way that i can. and from what i see from other people is family members contribute. they pay their taxes. they may have different circumstances, but they're just as hard working. i think the border generally is insecure. if it was secure, we would not have a drug problem. people always want to blame.

pack the bulbto -- pass the buck when they cannot deal with the real issue. that is my opinion. i appreciate you listening. --t: dan tweets in monte writes immigrants legal or illegal, to hand and enough to eat and consume. they help the economy and take jobs from no one. you can share your tweets tith us. -- with us. focusingrom reuters, u.s. immigration detention cost. there was much controversy recently about federal officials releasing hundreds of immigrants from detention centers, ahead of the looming budget cuts. the real issue should be the u.s. taxpayer foot as the bill

to retain more than 30,000 people every day. not a group of immigrants to pose little threat to public safety were transferred out of federal facilities last week. and he says that should not be the focus. instead the fact that they're being detained should be. she writes whenever the circumstances surrounding the move, the result is barter -- smarter enforcement that could save the government hundreds of thousands based on data from the president's most recent budget request. at some of the numbers here. in the meantime, we will take this call. gabriel, tampa, florida. democrat line. good morning. yes.er: host: what are your thoughts about not as violent illegal immigrants? [inaudible]

host: is that adequate? do you think this system is affected? what is your interpretation of it? caller: to be effective that way. no violence. they will be given somehow a chance to make it appear yen [inaudible] they are the ones that put the food on the table. otherwise -- [unintelligible] [inaudible] host: daniel. dearborn, michigan. independent calller.

that nobodyticed wants to focus on the main problem, which is they are here illegally and should solve the first before they worry about orm and if they are violent nine budget -- not as violent. they need to do with that problem first. with that problem first. it is costing this country too much. the devil is in the details. no one talks about that problem first, which would take care of everything else. thank you. host: what would you do for now as members of congress and others work to change the immigration policies. what would you do now for people who were here illegally? my familyrsonally waited seven years until we get

a visa to come to this country legally. the reason for that is this country can only hope assimilate so many people at a time. to answer your question, they should be sent back. they should wait in line like everyone else. they should come at a time of this country is ready for them and can give them work and fun no place for them to stay. like i said people work. and has been working for how long? this country has been allowing people to come here, and they should stick with what works. obviously this is causing a big problem. they should be sent back and can wait for their turn to come here legally. where are you from originally? caller: from many of. -- romania.

lawmakers arelly lawmakers reject lawbreakers are lawbreakers. you are criminal and should go back. we're talking about mexican to have to have a fake i.d. to drive. i really think they have come over here to learn about god. they follow the dumbwaiters and vote democrat. they are running the country. in that is why the democrats are over here. thank you. looking at the costs of detaining immigrants purses dealing with illegal immigrants and other ways. he writes, what we detained and reported only immigrants without documentation who posed a threat to public safety? instead of $164 for detention, alternatives such as weekly chickens or ankle bracelets would lower the cost no more than $14 daily. as little as 30 cents.

the alternatives are highly effective. we will look more at other perspectives on this issue. i wanted to show you the front page of the l.a. times. courtesy of the museum. we been reading from editorial piece. "prop 8ront page, hearing carries many options" -- this is part of what the supreme court listens to this week. you can see it on the front page of the wall street journal. people lining up yesterday in terms -- in hopes of getting the supreme court hearing tomorrow. lot of stories about this in the paper today. the washington post has this headline --

"the wall street journal" -- you can see supporters of in aizing sin-sex marriage mark in new york on sunday. we saw this issue come up yesterday. one of those who was a guest of david gregory on the "meet the press _ " -- even a few simply apply the rational basis test, there is no rational basis to justify this band. that is because of the third thing we proved, which is there was no evidence, none, that allowing gays and lesbians to marry arms the institution of marriage or harms anyone else. it does.

i think one of the things that is important is the evidence is having a loving couple that are married is great for children. everyone agreed with that. the evidence is that is true whether it is a gay couple or straight couple. it is true whether it is an adoptive couple or biological couple. host: that is one of the attorneys talking on "meet the press" yesterday. washington journal will be focused on the questions before the supreme court morning. tune in to hear more about the gay marriage issues that are before the supreme court. later on this afternoon on c- span a 4:00 eastern time there will be a preview of the same- sex marriage cases. this is part of george washington university law school. this is an in-depth look at the legal issues behind the questions for the court this

week. 4:00 today. we also heard yesterday from conservative, rolf lead -- ralph reed. >> i think the issue before the court and the issue of the american people, and they have voted in 31 state referendum initiatives for state marriage. only three have been voted the other way. this test very differently at the ballot box. the issue before the country is, do we have a compelling interest in strengthening and supporting the durable, and during, and uniquely complementary in pro credit union of man and woman. that would be an argument for why we should strengthen it. the reason why is it is better for children and all the social science shows that. "washingtonreed on

press" yesterday. send us a clear it overturned in california with proposition 8 at the heart of one of two cases. you can see the line up. here is a photograph from paris. gay marriage upon it clashed with police. this is an issue not just here in the united states. hundreds of thousands of people poured into the center of the city residents plan to legalize gay marriage and adoption. a couple of other stories in the news this morning. this front page headline. higher risk of accidents and safety violations the increased risk for accidents that labs conducting research on potential buyer of terror terms such as anthrax because federal officials have failed to develop national standards for things like cloud design, construction and operation according to a new report. the va hopes digital finals will

end the backlog of disability cases. we saw the head of the day on the sunday talk shows yesterday. he says he is committed to ending the backlog in 2015 by replacing -- by replacing paper with the electronic records. president obama hearing from members of the black caucus on his cabinet. he says african-american should build some of those top jobs. another story from capitol hill. amazon both shows there is more support of the issue of internet taxes on capitol hill. it would give states the power to levy -- levied online purchases. our question for you is what you think about non-violent illegal immigrants and whether they should be detained. this was spurred by an editorial piece this weekend. morning.ood

what happened to americans who are working and living illegally oversees such as mexico or the caribbean? america if you are working unlawfully in the bahamas and are caught you will be arrested and severely fined. the second issue i am going to raise very quickly. why focus on violence versus non-violence? there are very many serious crimes that are not not violent. weaponst -- possession, methamphetamine possession. those are some -- are very serious crimes that can hurt someone but not necessarily violent. host: where would you draw the line. people with no credible -- no background, should they be held accountable lead -- held accountable differently?

you raise an interesting question. i think that is why we have the executive line. to have -- that is why we have the executive branch. host: is there a lot of immigration in georgia? we see a fair amount of stories. what is it like for you live? caller: it is becoming a real issue. it is bubbling up. it makes me worry for the country. havingy worry about us in 50 years one language. i am getting -- i will not live to see that. i am an older guy. i really worry about what will happen in this country and 50- 60-70 years. i think a nation state requires one language. i think everyone should speak in

a nation state. if you look at what happened in canada with the cash call, there was a movement 10-15 years ago in quebec to disassociate from the rest of canada. it concerns me. host: a poll on our facebook page asking whether non-i like immigrants should be contained -- detained. so far the majority are saying yes. the democrat line. caller: think a particular phone call. yes, they should be detained and supported. i believe the country is not really country of the cannot control its border. a southern border is simply wide open. there are 33 million illegals in this country. they should be deported and respect our borders and, in the white -- right way.

that we should determine, this country should determine who should be allowed to come here, and who should not. when they bring children across the border, i believe that is a violation of the child care laws here. arejust cannot have -- you not a country if you could -- if you cannot control your borders. we should not have 33 million people running around in this country we do not know who they are and where they came from. 60 percent of illegal immigration comes in through the southern border. always is the same thing, go home and apply the correct way. they should not be allowed to come here and stay here. that is crazy. >host: bill and twitter. all this trouble to get future

votes while we sit by and have to deal with jobs being taken by illegals. harry, a republican. go ahead. turn your tv down for us. you're on the air. moving on to rolfe. ralph calling us from tennessee. hello. illegals, let me tell you something. and they do not need to be here. this country is an ms. all of the new houses, they are everywhere. be paying taxes, maybe they ain't. the money is going back to mexico. by that, it is not going into the economy. it is not going into the economy. the bottom line is that is why

you see people standing on the side of the road selling newspapers. they cannot find a job here did you cannot find a job in tennessee because they're everywhere here working. tyson foods down here in tennessee, when they come out of there, there is a lot that looks like it is coming from mexico. hire them because they do not have to pay them a lot of money, and they make out like we cannot get nobody else to do the job. the bottom line is, they can work them for nothing, they will work for nothing. the bottom line is our unemployment, i am telling you right now, if they was deported, our employment would go down. is there a note to ways about it. -- there ain't no two ways about it. host: here is a follower on facebook. they're right in to say no amnesty for illegal -- illegal

invaders, this is killing america. close the borders. going to texas on the republicans line. good morning. good morning. nice to talk to you. of course they should go home. it is the government's fault. they have not closed the borders. they have no intention of closing the borders. the we gave them amnesty in 1980's it was for 3.2 million or something like that then each one of them has the right to family reunification. they say they average from 5-8 people day bring in. if you get amnesty to the millions who are here now, we could expect when hundred million in family reunification. no one ever thinks about that. >host: you would like to see deportation if they are caught.

should they be given an opportunity to go to court, and so -- caller: no. if you come across the border, so devious to get across, you are breaking the law. not only knows how many laws they break. there is obviously an industry here in texas where you can buy fraudulent documents and get social security numbers. theco is looking at us for fools we have been. we need to just say no and if you bring your children over here, they do not get tuesday. would your children get to stay in another country if you got deported from mexico? of course not. are yourdren responsibility. here in texas we are having to educate $10,000 per child per , and anyway, it is just

absolutely ridiculous. all of this is because our government have absolutely refused to close the border all of these years. the country is really getting fed up with it. size,wn in texas of any they have a real organized mexican gang. drugs are coming in. are smugglingw in middle easterners and from all over the world. anyway, the government has cut back on enforcement should not cost americans $160 per day to detain someone. detain them long enough to get a bus to take them back. anti-illegal how immigration groups in arizona met the news last month that people from immigration

detention centers were being let go. one phoenix-based group stands with arizona. executive director says that affirmative homeland security was using immigration security as a political weapon. he wrote the shocking, lawless merely to score points on sequestration proved we have said all along, they are far too politicized to be trusted to implement a good deal, or the gang of eight's immigration reform plan. one reaction out of arizona. john, independent calller. go ahead. good morning. they always try to dump this thing down. i was calling to find out who counted the 11 million. if they are in the shadows, who

is counting these people? how did it to 11? all i see is illegal immigration all of the place. i go up north and see it sometimes there. i live in florida and is rampant down here. it is something where i think they're trying to dump it down where in the past, our fathers' generation was more honest about it. >> do not see a host: you do not see a difference between the violent immigrants and non-violent immigrants. caller: no, because there have been dui's were they killed people. they have killed a high-school principal, a policeman. illegal immigrants driving drunk. to me, that is violent and affects families. host: independent line in texas.

good morning. the red ahead. what are your thoughts on this issue? -- go right ahead. caller: border patrol agents right now are getting a 40% pay cut due to the sequester. we do our job properly, ma'am. we do not discriminate. we do not hate. we love what we're doing. the on-violent, violent, the thing is some of these people are coming in here and not working at all, just living off of the government's and taking everything to their advantage. host: you are a border patrol agent? caller: that is correct. host: how have things change with the sequestration? caller: we of been told we are to take one day a furlough every month.riod, two days per

that cuts most of the station, especially here in the south texas region. it will cut each day at least six agents. every ship that goes on we have -- at the moment with three ships but will be going to for pierre did you do the math. back at the manpower almost in half daily. also, they are cutting all of our overtime. that means we cannot work anytime after 8 hours, which normally border patrolled will put in 12 hours per day just doing our job. started yet or a date you think that will start to kick in? caller: this will start on april 7. we keep getting reports they will approve the budget. no, they are not. every border patrol agent right

now in the nation is hit popping back and forth. we are horrified. a lot of us serve the country probably. we come to work everyday and do our jobs. we are getting bullied because for some strange reason the government feels that we are overpaid, not doing our jobs. of course, everyone around the nation thinks the border is secure, and that is just not correct. and one that lives in the south texas region or the southern border will tell you that is a complete lie. aboutwhat do you think the story from the "la times" that the department of public security and ice released a living -- released illegal because ofts sequestration meant it was too expensive. host: most of us try very hard

to do what we are ordered to do. we do our jobs and catch the people we're supposed to. we process them. we feel like what is the point? why are we going to go through all the trouble in the paper work in these hard-turned dollars to do our jobs -- go other and risk our lives every day just for these people to say, you know what, these people are not violent, let's release them. it is horrible. it is a travesty. it makes no sense. we spent so much money -- we spend so much money all the time to properly train, get weapons. get it all ready for everything we do every day. we give politicians telling us, it is ok. you keep doing the best we can but we're just going to release these people you just caught. the thing is, they will go over

and theythey are from they are just going to release me again. no big deal. >host: here is the editorial we are asking about this morning. it wonders why detained a non- violence immigrants. it says republicans have been it'sd for releasing -- -- as republicans have slammed tomlin's occurred for releasing 2228 non-violent immigrants. and our next calller. caller: good morning. i am a small contractor. all of the jobs around boston are taking unions and putting other contractors, painters, carpenters, refers, out of business. i do not blame them. i blame all the developers from small to big. they are hiring illegals to do

the painting, carpentry, roofing, siding, and now toegals also get wise enough start their own companies. what happens is those companies hire illegals. knowing this should be heavily fined. to new you go up hampshire or the inner city, there is kids from both sides, the no. new hampshire down to the east side, but in the city they have no work. taking,legals are definitely taking jobs from americans. especially in the construction business. both bodies know it, republicans and democrats know what is going on. if they do not know what is going on, they do not deserve to be in politics. it is a crying shame. you do not deal with because

your dog is not rent or your wages are not aware. make thew do you connection? how you make them listen to your perspective? make them listen to your perspective? because americans -- yourcans, like example, position. everyone is getting up in the morning making a living. they do not look left or right. they did not realize what is going on in the construction business. they are more focused in their lives and they are not aware of what is going on in the construction business. i do not care where you go in america, you will find the same thing. the brazilians i have known are hard-working, polite, and courteous. they come in.

people hire them. they hire them because it is possible for them. they are getting cheap labor and making more money. why americansnow are not aware it does not in the construction business. the politicians know this. they definitely know it. host: think you for sharing your perspective, sam, and boston. we will go over what the "la times" talked about in terms of cost it topped $120 to incarcerate non-violent illegal immigrants. they say alternatives like supervised release -- release or electronic monitoring tax can cost up to $14 per day. half a dollar to $14 per day. we have had a poll on facebook to get your perspective. so far more people say they think illegal immigrants who are non-i like should be detained. about 40 guests's and 25 no's.

thank you. coming up next, michael steele former chairman of the rnc party. he will weigh in on the 2012 election and ralph nader, a consumer, advocate, and past president of canada will look at the disparity between ceo pay and minimum-wage. we will be right back. >> going straight to a personal

poppet. 11 on the commission since 2006. the chairman has been on since late 2009. his term is up. yours will be of next year. should we expect to see turnover at the commission? >> we do not have staggered terms. the past six years has flown by very quickly. and we shall see. i get asked this question every couple of years. we of been there almost seven years. inflection points like this. we shall see. shall see what? >> about what to do next. i did not think we should stay in these positions for ever, but at the same time, i love my job. that is part of what is keeping me here. we of a lot of a born work to do. of important work to do.

we spoke with the commissioners before his announcement. hear more tonight on "the communicators." tonight on first ladies, called a bigamist and adults were during her husband's 1828 provincial campaign, rachel jackson died of an apparent heart attack before andrew jackson takes office. his niece becomes a white house hostess, but is later dismissed from the fallout of a scandal. angelica van buren is the white house hostess for her father in law, president martin van buren, a widower. we will include your questions and comments by phone, facebook and twitter live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. michael steele is our guest, wrote former republican

national committee chairman. thank you for being here this morning. we're so glad you made it here. we sell the currency, with growth and opportunity project. come out the rnc with growth and opportunity projects. it was described as scary, narrow minded, out of touch, stuffy old men. what is the problem? guest: all of that, and a lot more. i look at this and go back to 2006-2008 and recognize i became chairman in 2009 on the heels of those very devastating elections. one is an odd-year election that killed certainly in the presidential election again. the american people say we have had enough of what you are selling. the buildingg into over here on first street and saying this is not the center of

the political universe anymore. the center of gravity is outside. it is out there in america, across the country. it is in place is republicans have not seen or heard of before. that is where we need to be. we immediately took the task to do that, to go out and spend that kind of time. i did not need a 10 million- dollar report to tell me we had a problem. i did not need to put that kind of money into something that was so obvious. and so over the course of six andhs, we really drill down put the emphasis back on the states. that is with the party really needs to do. the political landscape is such that people feel much more empowered politically now to speak their mind, show activism, be engaged and express a point of view and to expect the political class to respond to that. when it does not, as we have seen now in 2012, we lose.

so i think instead of stating obvious, go out and address the obvious and to be engaged in a way that makes people believe it take you seriously that you are ready to move forward with a different agenda, a different conversation with them. the lieutenant were governor of maryland. why hasn't war changed? guest: in my view i think we've gone back. we started in such a way that we said look, look at the various ways we can begin to communicate. one was infrastructure. blocks in building place. that was this that you needed to take or the door to go to reach people.

the hard part was going around the country and spending time in town hall meetings. that comes back to my grass roots activists. i used to say if i was not a chairman, i would of been a tea party. chairman, state chairman. i have been -- my policy has always been with people right wing appear in washington. it is very personal, street- wise. barry st. oriented. i think that is where the party needs to become on the streets of america. it is hard for some people to get outside of their comfort zone where you have this attitude that we have always done it this way for those voters over there -- or those votes will not talk to us. shown they want to be actively involved, to keep them

in prize, informed, asked their opinion and listen to them as they formulate policy. the political part of the process is a very important part in making all of that happened. it becomes the drawing card. you could get involved in a campaign, on an issue. the party has to be available to you. it has to be relevant. when you see it, you have to see yourself reflected in this in some way. i want to make sure you are right on all of this on all of these issues to make sure you are a legitimate republican. people come to politics the way they come to life, as it is. their experience is shaped -- their experience has shaped their view of the world. the process has to be willing to adopt that and say okay, how do these seven things -- out of the seventh things we're with you on

three of them. the fact is you were with us. maybe you can help us educate ourselves and inform ourselves on the other issues but that does not mean you cannot be a part of it. host: would you change the messaging or the fundamental message? guest: first off, but we did. when i looked at 2009 we had two different things staring me in the face. the backdrop of the election of president obama. everyone in the country seemed like they voted for him. this was the backdrop. the question is, how does one of let chris christie in a place like new jersey and the bob macdonald and a place like virginia? very different east coast states. one is southern, one is no.. one is blue, the other trending purple. how you do that? it really was the message. the message was getting back to the fundamental idea of liberty,

freedom, and opportunity. individual being empowered, not the government. having the wherewithal off to thethat in a way that message was the same, although translated differently. in other words, you speak the language of the people in the community in which you find them. i cannot, for example, go in front of a bunch of state and government employees talk about i want less government. all i said to them is i want to fire you. you talk about an efficient government that is responsive to people. that is a very different conversation. it is taking the message that off its core and translating it to people so they can understand it in their own language and see that values reflected. washington post"

has a piece. the compare the general public opinion to staunch conservatives professed opinions. the percentage -- the most confessed they make are real and fair profit. 78 percent of staunch conservative say yes. the health-care law will have a mostly bad effect on u.s. healthcare. 27 percent of the general public says yes. 80 percent say yes. the numbers are also different in where the u.s. stance if it is above other countries in the world and whether or not traditional values are threatened by newcomers from other countries. is a staunch conservative base out of alignment with what the general populace things? how you change that? -- how do you change that. guest: that is a very tricky question. there are some things very core to your philosophical orientation. on the health care piece, there is still a mixed number of polls

on exactly where the american people are on this health care for a lot of republicans, and conservatives, the fact is that this is a big expansion of government. that goes counter to the philosophy of limiting the expansion of government. creating access through a private market place where you can control and can get people in and out more efficiently verses having the government make those decisions for you. i think one of the things we had to figure out very early on since the health-care debate happened on my watch was how we translate the argument into everyday conversation? so that people could see the direct impact to them. i would still contend that 80 percent that says the long-term effects of the health-care law will have much more of a negative impact that a positive impact, i think that is still

true for a lot of the reasons that talked about -- that speak to the government's having its hand in trying to determine outcomes verses individuals making the decisions. are philosophical discussions. my concern is that we have fallen down in being able to engage that. we have made a personal with personal attacks on the president, and it becomes a conversation out of sync. when america is talking about jobs, we are talking about something else. it takes away from the ability to have an effective cohesion related to these issues. >> michael steele, former -- host: michael steele, former republican national committee chairman. reid, good morning. caller: thank you for taking the call. i am willing to make a few points and if you would like to comment on them, fine, then i

will get off the are. i think that we lost the last election for getting out of the bedroom and into the board room. during the convention when we were drafting the rules for the democrats who said that we did not -- they did not want god in their party, we said that even in the case of extreme conditions that a woman would not be allowed to have an abortion. i want to debate that issue, i do not want the government involved in that fundamentally. i think we lost the election because we are in the bedroom and not the bedroom -- border. and the press is allowed to paint president bush as a conservative for gun-control who put everything on a credit card, the press gets away with painting him as a big belt buckle conservative when the reality is that that line in the san has always been true from the press. it is an uphill climb.

86% 76% democrats. when you say that experiences shaped the world, i agree, but if we get out of the bedroom -- and the press asks a conservative, personally, on abortion, they would say would be for personal responsibility. host: -- guest: you touch on two important aspects. with respect to getting out of the bedroom and into the board room, i would agree with you. as a fiscal and social conservative myself, i make the case -- i am much more libertarian, i guess, which is why i am excited to see what brand paul is doing in terms of redirecting -- rand paul is doing in terms of redirect recover station. we create this inherent conflict by saying that we are for

individual liberties and freedoms and the ability to make choices in your life, but on the other hand we will limit that when it comes to these issues. that becomes a very unfortunate slippery slope for us. think we need to be less of a religious party, which some have painted us into that particular corner, and more of a pragmatic political party that understands fundamentally that our rights are vested in us by the constitution and that is the first line of defense and opportunity that every citizen should have and everything flows from that. it does not mean that those social issues are less important, they're not, but that is why my pastor on sunday talks to me about those issues. i bring those lessons of morality into my life and my politics and i get to make individual decisions and choices

on how i implement and execute that. from a policy perspective as a policymaker, you can have those ideas, values, and principals, but you have a greater good to be concerned about. when i was the first elected lieutenant governor in the state i could not just pick and choose to represent or support one particular political person over another. that is the difference between being the policymaker and the political actor. the political actor can make the case and the argument. the policymaker has to weigh the case. i think that where we have gone off the rails is on that particular point. with regards to the press, the press is what you make them. we give them the story, they're looking for the conflict, as we

did with vaginal probe is a legitimate rate in last campaign. they will play it up. when i was chairman, we did not have that kind of conversation. you did not hear us on the front lines about those issues. we talked about the core responsibility of the government right now to get out of the way for the private sector to create jobs. >> -- host: this twitter message coming in -- guest: look, going back to the point of the press, very quickly, the press takes a rush limbaugh sound bite and attributes it to every republican in the country. that is what you believe, you value. my argument is no, that is one person's opinion. a lot of people listen to him,

yes, but at the end of the day the leaders of the party, those who run for office and have the names on ballots, who put themselves out there to execute and articulates on particular issues, what do they say? i generally read it -- generally reject this notion that one or two high-profile people in the media are going to define my republicanism. i call myself a lincoln republican because i believe fundamentally in the origins of the party and the emphasis on the freedoms delivered. i do not want to get sidetracked by anything that rush limbaugh says because that is limbaugh. when i have a view, i will express it and you do not need to get sidetracked by that either. it gives you a sense of the expression of the party to have a conversation on different issues without having your

opinion or my opinion being the dominant one. i reject that in general. they do not define my politics. host: andy, indianapolis, independent line. caller: here is the republican party problem gonna be with your new emphasis on inclusion and tolerance, you do not govern that way. in indiana you got control of the governor and supermajority, and what are they doing? they are taking away the power elected anapolis, who democratic city council and are trying to take away their four at large seats. the legislature is going to write that out, of giving more power to the mayor, a republican. if you govern like that what you are saying is going to seem so transparent. you will lose even more people.

guest: that is a very good point. i will tell you, the check on that action is the people who are affected by that at the local level or state level, there will be a price to be paid at the next ballot box. those citizens who feel that that is encroachment on their ability to have representative government through those four at large seats will express that at the ballot box. you can get the governorship, you can get a super majority in the legislature, but andy hits it on the head, how you govern, how you take your philosophy -- if it is about creating an opportunity for everyone to improve the quality of their lives, the scope of their businesses, that is one thing, but if you take that opportunity and turn it into a weapon used against them where you take away representation and the ability

for voters to stay involved in the conversation, that comes back to bite you. where we saw that, where we will see it further is on the registration laws that have been promoted by republican legislatures and in some cases republican governors where even conservative courts have said -- are you crazy? you cannot do that. those coming to play. you have to be careful, if power is given to you and you abuse it, it will be taken away. host: karl rove spoke yesterday on abc about the report. let's hear what he had to stay. [video clip] >> those are tactical challenges that are easily described. but the party also faces a strategic issues that are harder to define or provide an answer to. one interesting thing that has

happened is if you look at the recent months, paul ryan, scott walker, bobby jindal, they have come forward with interesting speeches talking about the future of the party. this is the process that each party goes through after losing a presidential election. it is a constructive process. be strain is that it has to a party that stands for the right of every american and a party that emphasizes growth and prosperity, and i think that is right, it allows us to make our argument in every corner in america in a powerful way. coming from voices like bobby jindal and susanna martina's, it gives us greater credibility. host: what is the role of people like karl rove in shaping the future of the party? guest: it is whatever the industry wanted to be, no doubt

about it. he has been a staple in side of the rnc infrastructure since his days as a college republican in the basement of the building. he is a great tactician, there is no doubt. but what i hear there is that even he recognizes that there has to be a transition now and that some of the old strategies, even the ones that he implemented, have worn out their usefulness and effectiveness in winning elections. the red state blue state model that he created in 2000 is not necessarily the one that is going to win the order of the day. obama changed that in 2004. -- 2012. this generation of 18 to 40 year-old's see the world through less of red and blue and more purple. that is something that we will

have to adopt, number one. no. 2, when you are looking at the broader landscape of what he is saying, i would agree, but here is the problem. why not chris christie? when chris christie is not allowed to speak at a national conservative convention because he did not pass the test on a few issues or he embraced the president during a time of crisis in his state, which is nothing short of ironic, because as a former state official i can tell you that when a hurricane hit maryland and we had devastation from snowstorms and all of that, yes, you look to your federal partners for help. at that time it was true with bush and we were very appreciative of the help that came from the federal government. why would chris christie be less appreciative of help from the federal government at a time when his state was under devastation? when we look at our politics

through the prism, a lot of that noise comes from people who have never had to govern, make a decision, or account to anyone other than their mouth for what it said. that.discount to me chris christie is as much a part of the future of this party as a blue states east coast governor rick -- republican than anyone else. i think that in the mix of susanna martina's and the like, it shows that we have some real good bench seats, folks on the bench out there that we can pass to the future. >> michael steele, former republican national committee chairman. cold creek, henry, good morning. caller: hello, how are you? guest: good, henry. caller: hello, mr. steele. when you were up there i fell in

love with you. i like the way you did your thing. now, it seems as if the republicans do not want you to be chairman no more. when all those people were elected, you said the right thing and did the right thing. but right now they got this other guy and as chairman and he did not do anything last year. i am a democrat, not a republican, but as far as you attending to be a republican, colin powell voted for obama twice. they do not want you there, mr. steele. that.e trying to get guest: i have been there, i did what i was asked to do. i am very happy to of been

afforded the opportunity. when i went in as chairman, i told people i was the same guy that they knew as state chairman. i am an aggressive, in your face, call it as i see it kind of guy. i do not suffer fools lightly or i -- and i do not like to play but we always did that way game. i wanted to shake things up. rance was a part of that, he was my right hand man. i have always been amused and befuddle that he trashes the thing that he was supportive of. as a member he voted for it, the $50 million to go after the election. in this and opportunism and careerism is a thing and i and wanting to be rnc chairman, that

was important for him, but for me it was about getting the job done. i call it turning the elephant. we made a conservative -- a concerted effort to do that. by the time that we got to the campaign we had over 185,000 people around the country as a part of our coalition network that was tapped into helping us win with african-american and asian hispanic women, the u.s. congress, state legislatures, governorships. andave susanna martina's alan west, elected. tim scott, now a united states senator. we have this national network built through a coalition effort that was designed to go out there and engage people where we found them.

real and make it relevant. i think we were very effective. 780e house seats, legislative races around the country, governorships. we slipped seven or eight state legislatures from democrat to republican. all of that hard work paid off because we engage people. my first trip as national chairman was to harlem. members asked why i was going there, i told them that that is where the votes are. i talked about hip-hop republicanism, people thought i was crazy. i was not talking about having your pants down around your behind, i was talking about being real, been engaged and how people value their services today and how it is relevant to this idea of individually, --

individuality and freedom. to me it was an important part of laying down a new landscape. unfortunately, rance tore it all up when he came in, taking out the infrastructure he put in -- we put in place, and you saw the results from doing that. >> some social conservatives are worried the party may be less welcoming to them. tony perkins, a member of a christian conservative activist groups said this -- if they abandon marriage as an issue, evangelicals will set out the election completely or move to create a third party, either option putting the republicans on a path to a permanent minority." what about these twitter messages, talking about how cpac was a conservative event and

chris christie is not a conservative. here we have the same thing from sandy beach -- guest: see, you know nothing about me and you are making an assumption because i am talking about expanding the party. you will find i am more conservative than you. it is how you talk about it and express it. by expressing it in a way where people feel welcome to, that is a good thing. it is an opportunity for them to get in the room and experience the full breath of what they believe. i would never call you a moshi moderate for disagreeing with me about my view on abortion. i am pro-life, i support marriage between a man and woman. does that make me more or less conservative or moderate? at the same time that i say that, i talk about taking a look we expand opportunities

for individuals. it is just crazy. get that out of your head. you are distorting what republicanism, broadly speaking, what conservative is and should be in the modern era. i have no time for the silliness. people who sit back and judge based on a few sound bites someone's philosophical orientation, particularly when they are expressing a willingness to bring people in, you are just clueless. i think that the broader point for the party is how do you stay relevant in a changing political climate. you do not need to abandon your views. i said it before, we can be the party that supports and advocates for the life of the unborn. i firmly believe that. we can be the party that recognizes and supports the institutions of marriage.

i believe that. but that does not mean that we support those things to the exclusion of all else. that because you do not happen to agree with us on those issues, you do not happen to support individuals who support marriage between you know, a man and a woman and a man and a man or whatever, that is fine. but if you are with me on these other issues that we believe in, that's fine, let's talk about that. the question is, what kind of party do we want to be? if we want to be a party that stands at the door with a party and a check off list, good luck, we will go the way of the whigs and find ourselves increasingly irrelevant to the political process. if these other things that we value and support and we want you to be a part of that, we understand that everyone is different but if there are elements of what we are and

believe it is attractive to you, join us in this fight for a greater freedom of opportunities. that is how you start to change hearts and minds down the road on these bigger social issues especially, when you seem more willing to listen and embrace. steele is our guest. william is our next caller, hello. over myi am calling enthusiastic support for the african-american outreach that is going on. i want to ask you, what do you think will happen? whats it different from you are doing? how much you think it will cost? host: are you african-american, can i ask you? caller: yes. host: tell us about how it is effective for you, what you view as effective or ineffective

work. caller: i have been a republican for a mighty long time and do in fact no mr. steele and his work in prince george's county. i am happy that the current chairman has come out and said that they are going to have a specific outreach to african- american, that is the reason i oppose the question as i did to mr. steele as i did. i am not sure that you ever, and it is ok, that you ever had a specific program to do outreach to african-americans. i am saying do you think it will work this time and how much do you think it will cost? all, we did, we had a coalition apartment with a staff of six, not two, as wasrding to rance, and it

two more than the rnc had in the 2012 cycle. the months in between february and october individuals 185,000 working across the country as a part of our coalition network that helped us to elect individuals like tim scott and alan west, brian frazier and star parker, african-americans running for congress. a host of folks all together youss the spectrum, if will, who were very much a part of this network. $10 million to do that. the budget was $10,000 for year, and i had to fight others just to get that. i find this $10 million idea to be amusing, number one, and no. 2 black folks are not going to

get $10 million out of the rnc. that is for every level of outreach. ask, specifically of that how much is going to be allocated to developing a network of programs and opportunities that were already in place, by the way, between 2009 and 2011. to their credit, they put some black faces on their website in 2012, great outreach, but you saw the results. frankly, i do not buy it. this is really beyond money at this point. this is about whether or not the rnc chairman is prepared to go up to my neighborhood, come to prince george's community college, lee state university, talk to a room of 18 to 25 year- old african-americans and justify to them your view on

voter registration policies that disenfranchise them, that they feel to be racist. you need to have that conversation. money that amount of is going to get that right unless you are in the room to explain the rationale behind theyrting policies that feel disenfranchised them, that are at the core racist. that is what it has to be. i want to go have a conversation with my community in harlem about the impact of health care of they feel them, to talk about our solutions with respect to health care disparities. that is why it -- that is where you have to begin to make this term. i banned the term outreach good because it me that the people at the rnc were having a nice photo op and showing the to actually knew some black folks and hispanics and others. the real work of coalition is

building relationships, making investments in black media, making investments in hispanic media, making investments in those communities. more out than just dollars. host: michael steele is our guest, former republican national committee chairman, former lieutenant governor in maryland. he holds degrees from johns hopkins with a law degree from georgetown. jerry, independent caller. steele those who i am. steele-- caller: mr. knows who i am. caller, how are you, gerry? you, gerry?w are caller: great. i have always felt that you have been a voice of reason in the republican party and it is unfortunate that people you have worked with before have not been. this is an interesting column

from before, talking about , with a law that was proposed and signed by herbert hoover, creating something that i think was important to people today. so, why is it that republicans have come up with so many new ideas and new things, all the way back to lincoln, but today it seems to you have people -- mitt romney day 1 said that he would try to reverse it. in the history of the republican party the republicans have come up with great ideas and new things and people today

want to undo that. guest: i appreciate that. what you point out is a fundamental lack of understanding of our own history relative to the things that we as trash or criticize fundamentally being oriented out of the philosophy of the party at that time. the referenced david bacon, talking about the emancipation proclamation, a radical departure from where the country was a the time. you talked about one of my favorites, affirmative action. a lot of republicans will trash that program in a heartbeat not recognizing that it was republicans who created affirmative action. richard nixon during his administration brought together african-american leaders within his administration to put in place a leveling field because he saw that black contractors were not getting a fair deal on

federal contract in with their white counterparts. he wanted to create an avenue so that they could have that access to the same opportunity that white contractors did when it was born out of the '60s and '70s. has the program change? this is one of my beefs with the gop, without trashing and considering the history. first understand the history and then recognize how it has changed and how we need to get back to what it has been intended to do. a lot of folks have benefited from these programs and a lot of folks today benefit from affirmative action programs, but to say that they are the be all and end all without any type of appropriate review and updating, that is not smart. therefore you take these instances that our problems and you exaggerate them into bigger issues than they might be, tearing down the program that is

ultimately still helping people. i think we need to understand exactly the role the replayed in creating these gateway opportunities for people in this country. work within the system, but sometimes outside of it, as we saw in lincoln, we need to appreciate that more and more. we have a perfect thing now with budget and that discussions that we are having to do the same thing again. jack kemp was one of those guys that found the way to use the tools of government to create an argument for empowering yourself, putting those resources to the improvement of a community and betterment of people. that is one of our strengths that we need to get back to. call, glenn joins us from wisconsin. caller: good morning, mr. steele. i am good for an old fart. [laughter]

a two-part question regarding the american legislative exchange council. i would say that in the 2010 that the republicans hit several home runs where the bases were loaded and democrats were sitting on the box. with what is going on now, going ,ack to when you were chairman did you have any interaction with alec and their 2000 and state houses and what they were able to do with coalescing so many state houses and the legislative thing? being that i am in wisconsin and the brouhaha that we went through here? i was one of those crazies that went to madison several times to protest.

today inviews on it relationship to the way that the party is going, being that they are on a more conservative bent back and have a lot of special interest money behind them. guest: the first part of your question, yes, we worked with alex and a number of state legislators, base oriented organizations, grassroots, many of them, to identify candidates that they were supporting, candidates in our stable that were capable, i think, of changing the paradigm in states like wisconsin. we did, we turned the legislature around. the first time in the modern history of the rnc we devoted a lot of resources to state and local levels. why? i am a local guy. i put a lot more evidence -- emphasis on building the party

from the ground game up. i cannot be a good lieutenant governor or help my governor effectively on education policy, which was responsible for, if i do not develop a relationship with the school boards, teachers' unions, and other organizations that have impact and influence on what happens to education in the state. i may disagree with a lot of what they stand for and what they do, but i need them in the room to have a a conversation around the sets of ideas going forward. we took the same approach at the rnc, working through these legislative issues in particular, knowing that the legislative process is the undervalued process at the end of the day. a lot of people do not look at it, they tend to look at the state capitol first. you want to get a sense of where things are going at, where they are, you can see it there.

i think that alec would still play an important role in the upcoming cycle as more and more legislative races, online. -- come online. that network will become valuable as well with a number of other networks going forward. the party needs to make sure they have a relationship with them. simple philosophy and political intrigue aside, talk about how we can form a relationship around some, ideas to move an agenda forward to get the best candidates, for example, our candidates in place to make a difference. host: michael steele, former republican national committee chairman, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up next, ralph nader, focusing on the gap between ceo pay and minimum wage. later on our segment looks at halfway houses.

what is their cost, what does it look like? first this news update from c- span radio. >> cyprus say it is painful for [indiscernible] .ailout deal they agreed to make large account holders take losses to help to secure a last-minute $13 billion bailout. the banks have been closed for more than one week in cyprus. robert barnes to we did this morning that the chief justice cousin will attend the oral argument as his guest, she is bringing the woman she wants to marry. a lesbian who wants to marry her partner will be at tomorrow's supreme court oral argument in seating reserved for family members and guests of john roberts. john roberts is a conservative appointed by george bush in 2005. she said she is rooting for him,

she rooted for him to be approved by the senate, saying that he is a smart man and believes that he sees where the tide is going and added that she trusts he will go in a good direction. you can hear the argument in the case tomorrow on -- at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. tonight, on "first ladies," called a bigamist and an adulterer, which will jackson died of an apparent heart attack before she could take office. his niece becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed from follow scandal. anjelica huston is the white house hostess for father-in-law in the next white house. comments andyour calls tonight on c-span 3, c-

span radio, and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. nader, former presidential candidate, consumer advocate, thank you for being here this morning. the cruel gap between ceo pay and stagnant minimum-wage. you write that this income inequality is more like income tierney. explain. guest: when i was a young man the fortune 500 ceo's paid themselves between 300 times and 400 times the minimum wage. the head of wal-mart makes $11,000 per hour on an eight hour day and he million wal-mart workers who are making less than they were making for democrats, 202-585-3880. in 1968, adjusted for inflation.

not a wage that meets the necessities of life. the iniquities for republicans, 202-585-3881. is growing, it is still growing, even though the low income workers have taken the brunt of the wall street crash and recession. they are more underemployed, underinsured, they get ripped off more in the consumer marketplace. we think it is time to turn this around with a modest goal, catching up with 1968 wages in terms of minimum wage. that means that right now the workers have double the productivity of what they were in 1968. one wal-mart worker is twice as productive now than the wal- mart worker of 1968, but is getting less money adjusted for inflation. ,t is a real issue of fairness a moral and ethical issue for americans.

>> who is responsible for -- host: who is responsible for changing these issues? the government, or these companies? guest: that would be right -- that be nice. costco starts workers at $11.50 plus benefits, compared with wal-mart who has 1 million workers making between $7.25 per and $10.50 per hour. the head of costco has taken it upon himself to remove -- to believe in relatively good wages. he says that his employee turnover is low or, as workers have higher morrell and they are more experienced in production and it is better for the company. model is not only a model that presses very hard on workers, but because these workers working for wal-mart cannot meet the necessities of life, wal-mart has advised them

technically how to apply for food stamps, how to apply for earned income tax credit, how to apply for a variety of housing assistance. wal-mart is in fact part of the burden on the taxpayer. that is why we think that minimum-wage equal to 1968, big producing less expenses in terms of taxpayer funded services with higher paid workers paying into social security and medicare. all of this is explained on our website, time for a raise. anyone who is interested in signing petitions and getting involved in this winnable fight -- it is so equitable that even rick santorum has said on television last year that he has always been for an inflation- adjusted minimum wage. so has mitt romney until last

year, but under the pressure of the primary he flipped, but for years he was also for an inflation-adjusted minimum-wage. "ost: this "the new york times graphics has the current rate and the inflation adjusted rate. in this effort? how are you making your viewpoint now? the grass-roots level behind us here? guest: i started pressing for this in the election last year. this seemed like a great issue. but the people felt that either party have anything concrete for 100 million working poor. would pick it up. president obama promised $9.50 but 2011, he never mentioned it in 2012. because he did not mention it,

the democratic practice of the party was that no other candidate would mention it because that would embarrass the president. they even muzzled people like elizabeth warren and chris murphy. the state of the union speech he mentioned $9 by 2015, going backwards. so, now there are bills in congress and the one that we favor, h.r. 1346, just introduced last thursday by alan grayson from florida, and it was entitled -- catching up with 1968. 1346. host: our guest is ralph nader, the author of the book 17 solutions -- the author of the book "17 solutions." to join the conversation and speak with mr. nader, for

republicans, 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. see theld you like to president called for in terms of minimum wage? you mentioned what he talked about now and what he talked about before. what does your bill do? when would you like to see it go? host: that it is time for the workers to be paid what they were paid in 1916. -- guest: that it is time for the workers to be paid something equal to what they were paid in 1968. productivity has doubled. you could argue that workers should be given the benefit of the increased productivity. let's put it this way, given the state of the republican party in congress i think the first step should be $10.50 minimum wage

and an adjusted for inflation store for the consumer price index adjusted in the future. mart makes money in ontario and it has to pay the $11.25 minimum wage. right across the river in buffalo they pay $7.25 federal minimum wage. australia pays almost $16 minimum wage if you are 20 and older and they have a lower unemployment rate, the australian dollar is a bit more valuable than the u.s. dollar. it is not a foreign exchange situation. in these countries, by the way, they all have universal health insurance. safety nets. we are at the bottom of the totem pole. the land of free, the home of the brave, it is disgraceful. at the same time, ceo pay has gone up lined hundred% since

1968. this is not the market based pay. they pick the board of directors that approve their pay. a wine and dine them, giving them a per diem insurance. the son not market determined wages. just the other day i came across a posting by general electric for a job called assembler in a factory in new jersey that assembles medical device products, starting at 6:30 in the morning, the shift. the offer -- the author -- the offer was $8 per hour. the boss of general electric may swell thousand dollars per hour on a general day. also, general electric has not paid federal income taxes on u.s. base profits in over 10 years. you know, this is unheard of in american history. we have got to turn it around. those 30 million workers can do

it simply by showing up. forgetting her argument -- getting their arguments and the data together. u.s. to else? obviously labor you -- you ask who else? obviously labor unions are involved. religious social service groups, civil rights groups to help the naacp, hispanic groups stepping forward. the hispanic caucus should take a much more forward issue. it needs to be replaced with assertive stand up for millions of american workers who are sweating it out on sweat labor. host: ralph nader, the calls are lining up. there, glad you are out think you're doing great work. even though as a republican i

disagree with most of what you say, i think the free market has to increase the minimum wage. i particularly did not like the way the you say that the workers are doing twice the work that they were doing 30 years ago, your statistics, i do not know. just because you are doing twice the work, there is not a reason for that, it does not mean that they are running around more. i am not getting twice when i got paid when i started. i am 100% with the with c l's making too much money not being market-driven, i think that is where the energy should go. the other end will take care of itself, if you can figure out some way, and i hope you do, break down those crazy wages for the c o's. host: what would you do? -- ceo's? host: what would you do? caller: i am not that smart.

i wish that i knew. guest: one way would be to give shareholders the power to approve or disapprove, rubber- stamp top executive compensations for the president's and ceo's of these companies. you can believe that's these individual pension funds would never let these corporate executives get away with what they're getting away with. we have a moral compact in this country historic with that workers should get a minimum wage that meet their basic and essential necessities. if they are more productive because of automation and working twice as hard, they should share in those benefits. after all, those productive automations are written down very rapidly by crook -- but political pressure.

it is a very mixed situation. i have to say, just from a decency point of view, the golden rule, never mind any laws, how can we a lot -- how can we allow 30 million workers to be paid so much less than the workers of 1968, when they were half as productive because they weren't as automated? host: gainesville, north carolina, scott. caller: i appreciate what you're talking about 100%. i am an example of what you're talking about. making i took a job $9.10 per hour. that went up and up, the company left, and i was making $35 per hour with benefits.

make $8 per hour, and more educated, have learned the computer software, gone to school. is a market driven by the company markets. they can afford to pay less wages. you are right, it is a moral issue. we are supposed to be our brother's keeper. it is unfortunate. guest: this is exactly the kind of story that we would like people to describe in terms of their own personal life. more of these personal stories from hard-working, low-income people to be sent to our web site. thing about the market is that when these corporations come to washington with high-priced slot -- high- priced lobbyists, they basically expose american workers to almost slave labor in

places like china, which attracts u.s. exports and jobs. wal-mart tells the suppliers over the years that if you cannot meet the supplier price, closed down and open up in china, ok? is that the market? that is sheer political muscle. we do not allow any one state in this country to pull down the wages of other states by passing a lower minimum wage. we have a federal minimum wage safety net. why are we allowing these regimes to crush their workers and not allowing them to form unions to pull down our worker'' standard of living. anyone who wants an argument about free market, these are regular markets and are a lot similar. host: house speaker john boehner

spoke last month about minimum- about ifhis concerns it went up what it would mean for small businesses. take a listen. [video clip] >> i have been dealing with the minimum wage issue every year i have been in office. when you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? you get less of it. why would we want to make it harder for smaller employers to hire people? brothers ande a 11 sisters on every run of the economic ladder. i appreciate this issue as much as anyone in this town. what happens when you take away the first couple of runs on the economic ladder? you make it harder for people to get on the ladder. i'll vote -- our goal is to the -- is to help people onto the

ladder. a lot of people being paid the minimum wage are being paid that because they come to the work force with no skills. this makes it harder for them to acquire the skills they need in order to climb the ladder successfully. host: john boehner. what is your response? guest: he is making $100 per hour, plus benefits and perks. i have never heard anyone who makes $7.25 per hour arguing against a minimum-wage over -- that matches 1968. first of all, it will pat -- it will pump money into the economy. when they get the hike, they will be spending it. $30 billion per year for the first two years, an economic stimulus not paid for by the taxpayer. number two, quite important, small businesses are only a fraction of the employers.

two-thirds of the low in, american workers are companies like wal-mart, mcdonald's, burger king, who are very profitable and use c l's make an average of $10 million per year. right there that can be easily compensated before 1968. there are some small businesses defined as having up to 500 employees, they can certainly afford it as well. realther thing as far as small business concerns, economic studies show that overall there will be a net job increase. tens of billions of dollars in money has been spent by rising minimum wage workers. illustratedoint was by an owner of a restaurant here in washington who started with nothing. he pays well over $10 per hour

for his workers. i asked him why. he said, first of all the art happier. i am happier, they're more productive, there is less absenteeism, they take pride in their work. it is a decent thing to do. then he said -- look, there are all kinds of pressures that we just throughout american history. we just to the right thing to do, a productive thing to do, not to the shortsighted profiteering and patient -- of a few giant corporations, who are the muscle behind freezing depreciated minimum-wage. now in deepby internal discussions as to what they will do. they will come out for a higher minimum, i think, but the question is how high. they are being embarrassed by companies like costco who pay $11.50 for starters.

host: ralph nader, author of many books and articles, including "unsafe at any speed." his latest book is "17 solutions." michael, lansing, ill.. hello, michael. caller: talking about the differences between-rights and positive rights, like the right to be left alone, but positive rights, for the government does not give you money or something, you do not have any rights. the less money you have, the less freedom you got. conservatives just cram their flag down your throat because you do not have any money. to be tolerated in this country, you have got to have $250,000 per year or something. glorious freedoms are just taken away from new by the police, whoever.

>> that is a very important point. we have engaged in some information ticketing recently at wal-mart stores in connecticut. it is just stunning, the fear inside of the wal-mart store when you raise the question of minimum wages. they have cameras and security all over. the workers, when they said they are good and they smile, the minute that you hand them something or raise the issue, they just freeze. that is just not healthy. the caller makes an important point. when you are poor, your much more likely to be intimidated and censored. we have much documentation on how the four get ripped off in the rural areas in all kinds of ways. because their calls are not returned, they do not been respected. they do not have any leverage our power. it does bill right over into

assertiveness. a higher-quality where you do not have to swallow your grievances because you're terrified you might lose what little you have. host: idaho, republican caller, good morning. caller: good morning. the minimum wage, you are leaving out the people on fixed income. i have social security and it is better to raise the minimum pay forough what we goods and services. it makes sense to me that while you are putting the burden on senior citizens of the united states, there has been work. to geti would like them a decent interest rate on their savings. one-tenth of 1%? because the federal reserve, which represents the big banks, have kept the interest rates

historic low. your life savings, not in a bank, you cannot get any money. hundreds the company can find savings other than raising their prices. workershe low income pay staggering compensation packages to their management. they can take some of that out. that are all kinds of ways companies can adjust. there is the restaurant in small business and he pays his workers $11 an hour, $12 an hour starters. these workers will support medicare and social security, so

there'll be more money and services for elderly people. .ost: we have this on twitter host: walmart and stores like that have low wages and sell cheap goods. guest: they are using chinese labor. the national headquarters are in arkansas. why are we protecting american workers? breaks all kinds of tax from washington. the response to american workers gratitude? they can put their workers and their place. .emi-starting wages

we have to pay attention to that. walmart gets tax breaks that small businesses do not get. toy steer their workers earned income tax credits and housing assistance and food stamps. they are downloading their costs by underpaying their workers. tot: are americans addicted low prices? there couldchina -- be sticker shock. guest: the labor cost has been dropping decade after decade. $315 billion ver

last year -- wal-mart. if they raised the wages to $10.50 an hour, it would be $2 billion. $2 billion. let's not exaggerate the costs of that. from michigan. caller: you are gorgeous and intelligent, libby. you are gorgeous and intelligent, too, mr. nader. now i make about $9 an hour. so ie to fill the gap could get on social security. $9ave been working for $8 or

for quite a while. forve written in your name elections and people say my vote is wasted. third-partyed a candidates to give voters more choice and to have different kinds of agendas. i ran on this new book i put out called "the seventeen solutions bestying end of flesh and adjusted higher minimum wage, strengthening the ability of workers to bargain, bring down the bloated military budget, stop being an empire and try to pull these the whole world. so wete the tax code first tax things we do not like.

things like wall street speculation tax. ,hat is why i ran for president to give broader choices. it is called "the seventeen solutions" in paperback. video,e have a short and. comment. caller: it's no secret that the democrats and republicans stray .d away very hard from issues if you could analyze tea partiers abandonment of them. guest: money and politics. i spoke to high-ranking democrats and the house.

agree it should be and they agreed. one of them said because we would raise less money. damagingan extremely influence on both parties. money corrupt politics. organized labor does not have to worry about minimum-wage. their workers get more than minimum wage with the two-ti ered situation. they are not putting in for one of television ads on the air the with the old union's used to do. too sat besideet with least worst choices -- we get too satisfied with least

worst choices. youour least worst voter, do not hold the least worst candidate. the other guy is worst so you lose your voting power. they do not have to give you the time of day. host: what of the chances of a third party run looking like? isk about a third party helped form the base of the big parties? guest: let's look at american history. the first party against slavery in 1840 was a small party. small parties for labor and farmers' rights. theas easy to get on ballots back in those days.

they put those issues out. major partiesthe adopted the issues -- fair labor standards, regulating banks and railroads on behalf of farmers rights. the restrictions started. the started increasing in 20th-century against third-party candidates. here's what i think is going to happen. we will have the usual green party and libertarian party's in 2016. there are some make it billionaires that are considering running a third party. the get enormous press and polls and they are in play. mayor bloomberg it almost did it

in 2012. probable because there are some many mega billionaires now. they'll say, we are going to go four-party- or race. checkd it $500 million and not have to be held in tends to be attracted to a lot voters. out and cameopped back in and got 19 million votes. people are ready. you have to convince them that the candidate has a chance to win. michigan -- tim. caller: good morning. you mentioned ross perot.

of whatfor ross because he stood for. he was talking about nafta and gas. a big giant sucking sound across the border and across the ocean. i believe the nafta it gas treaty drove a lot of businesses out of this country. ross perot was right. guest: you are right. we lost millions of jobs to china, mexico and other wagesies that hold worker down and make it difficult to allowedlution and this people's right to sue. democracies.

you cannot have free trade with countries that are not free. you want to see what evidence is. visitcitizen.org and global trade watch. you'll have more than you need to demonstrate the veracity of what you just said. the majorh nader is creditor of the consumer rights movement. he helped in the role of the epa and also the freedom of information act and the consumer product safety commission. so many things that ralph nader contributed to. do you feel your work today is more challenging? guest: it keeps getting more

difficult. the drug industry has 500 lobbies and there are political action groups. --y get congress to agree theyoxidize drug prices -- subsidize drug prices. same thing with the oil companies. everybody knows what the score is. it is easy to turn it around. i want to convey that to people. they can organize a little bit. why not a hobby? there are 50 million bird watchers. have 10,000 congress passed watchers with a similar energy.

thee had a million of them, building we see would turn around faster than you can say "spitfire." congress andf millions of voters back home. .hey make all kinds of excuses the constitution started with "we the people." host: don, go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments. the cheap labor in other countries that has to compete with our products here in the united states. , if theyfrom walmart were made quality was in the united states, they would last longer. it has turned into a throwaway

society. i would rather pay more money for it higher quality product so i don't have to go back to the store and buy another when it breaks. guest: some companies in china are closing up and coming back home. producescompany that equipment for the salons. they shut down in china and hired people in houston, texas. the owner said quality-control and transportation congestion in china, just to get to the ports to ship them to the united states. by theot of headaches

chinese government and the provincial governments. maybe we are seeing a slight return. that apple computer is produced by chinese workers in huge factories where the turnover every year is enormous. the pressure on these workers is enormous. apple is now recognizing this. amends.hey start making host: bernard from illinois. caller: i was wondering if you feel or how we keep it passed a law that all internships should be paid a minimum wage. guest: that has been a controversy. the argument against is that they are doing work for their

employerst, and the do not see them as necessary? important workdo for their employers and they should be paid minimum wage. that will be part of the argument on capitol hill on hearings to raise the minimum wage to equal that of 1968. 346 includes farm workers, which had been exempted. doing pretty important work, growing and harvesting our food. there are certain workers that have been exempted from the fair labor standards. i forgot to mention that the inflation-for an

adjusted minimum-wage. they are ready to send that message to john boehner and eric cantor. people cannot make what the workers made in 1968 because the republican party has been blocking an increase. 18 states have a higher minimum wage. washington state comes in at $9.19. not have reached the 1968- adjusted level. $10.50.cisco, george miller are from san francisco.

host: "the crow gap between ceo pay and the stagnant minimum- cruel gap - the c between ceo pay." guest: that is an interesting point. it makes me remind the public that barack obama has stated done enacted 18 tax breaks for small business and more are on their way. business,tion big which is so programmed that many do not pay any taxes.

there are tens of millions of people in this country if they paid $1 of federal income tax would have paid more dollars into the u.s. treasury than general electric, honeywell, pepco, pacific gas and electric who have made billions of dollars in profit but did not pay one dollar. there should be a taxpayer appreciation day frawley belts that taxpayers have been required because they have not organized and become powerful. i wrote 100 of them years ago. a taxpayerannounce appreciation day on april 15?" they were not been used. host: ralph nader is the author

of "the seventeen solutions, bold ideas for our american future." thank you for joining us. we will look at how four houses. faye taxman is our guest. john kerry is in afghanistan and meeting with hamid karzai and talking about continued u.s. assistance to the country. there has been concern that hamid karzai may be jeopardized the the war with anti-american rhetoric. back here, the government statistics show there has been little progress in getting more people with disabilities into the workforce. 18% of the disabled population have jobs. ago.s 20% four years

prince harry will be visiting the united states. a spokesman said the prince will travel to the east coast as well as denver and colorado springs. there will be stops and arlington national cemetery and the walter reed national medical center. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] rachel jackson dies of an apparent heart attack before andrew takes office. .he white house hostess idower.an buren is a wood

we will include your comments. journal" gton continues. time,on mondays at this we look at your money. ,oday our guest is faye taxman from george mason university. we are talking about how for houses, residential re-entry centers. what i are they? small they tend to be facilities that people go to after prison on the way back to the community. they put them in these centers to help them along to hopefully avoid them returning to prison.

we don't have that many in the u.s. they are an important part of the criminal-justice system. it would be useful to grow them out. when people have been incarcerated, but tickly people with longer sentences, they are away from the committee and have detached from the normal employment housing, family community setting and they need some help in terms of integrating back into the community. alongp the person moved in that stabilization. .eople go there to find housing

people get employment and deal with some of their mental health or substance abuse issues. they can serve a very important purpose. .ost: tell us about the rules are there uniform rules in terms of curfews and finding employment? guest: there are different layers. termshard to be global in of policies and procedures. even some local governments have different rules. they are where people sleep. there are limitations unless they are working. authorize believed to go to self-help groups and maybe visit with family members when it earned enough privileges.

if people have been away from the committee, they need a place to get comfortable and getset things up for themselves. imagine if you move to a new city. you cannot find a job or an apartment in a day. it provides time for people to get their priorities in order. to help the person in this process of getting more stable in the community. most have four houses will require people to find employment. the best outcome is when they leave, they have a job at have a place to live as well as begin some of the connections, like if the need to continue mental health programs or maybe education.

host: here are some details about residential re-entry .enters or halfway houses guest: the guidelines are set up to help people and so people understand the goal is to help them become employed and find a stable place to live. if there are mental health issues, they can begin the connections. this is designed to prevent recidivism. houses do not offer services on site. it of a a little b drawback.

theight be better if halfway house is all for the services. for the needsgh of people. is from georgean mason university. you can join the conversation. democrats, 202-737-0001. 0002.licans, 202-737- 0205.endents, 202-628- hi, monique. caller: why does the government -- do not put enough funds into the former inmates that do go on to have warehouses'. out and inmates come have nothing to do or no type of

structure set up for them to have any type of connection with their kids. i think it should be federally mandated for those with kids to go into the halfway house is to have some interaction or bonding with their kids before they have the opportunity to come back into the streets. up kids get lost then mixed in this whole situation set up. guest: you raise a good point. people to make connections with those that they love. a big part of that is their children. the more we can do to increase the connections to their families and when they are in the half warehouses' solidifies

the relationships that helps the father and mother become parents again to their children's and that can be effective. whether we want to mandate these programs is a different issue. it should be encouraged that the reentry centers and prisons should encourage the connection to people's loved ones and families. that is one way to reduce recidivism. cost she brought up the and funding for programs. tell us about how these centers are funded. the federal reentry centers which are run by the federal bureau of prisons are basically funded by the federal governments.

they have contracts with these 220 -- some of these organizations will have residential reentry centers in several places across the u.s. generally they are non for- profit centers. they basically have contracts with the government to provide these reentry centers. usually the contracts are based upon a 10-year period of time. it is hard to find a location. the federal government has worked with these organizations . it is an issue that is important for us to consider. citent to be able to places where people can be

employed. fiscal year 2012, $309 million. those are generally inflation-related costs. we look at it in terms of the average per day cost. it ranges based upon the location of the residential re- entry center as well as the types of services and contracts they have with the federal government's. a lot of the residential re- entry centers -- it is hard to compare costs. compared to a state prison and sometimes those costs will not include the capital costs.

one. we to improve upon is requiring these residential re-entry centers to offer more services for all offenders. the basic function is unemployment, which is important, and having a stable place to sleep. what we know about trying to change behavior is whinnied much more programming to do with criminal thinking and criminal cognition and some of the other factors that affect how will they are going to do. that is not included in the cost and something we should encourage. is about $7 a day per person. those are slightly older costs

but it is still worth tit. host: richard from baltimore. caller: good morning. pastor been any studies comparing the recidivism rate of those who go to the halfway houses as compared to those who do not? did a my organization study about two years ago looking at recidivism rate for those in the reentry centers with a comparison group of those who did not go in them. there have been a number of studies on behalf of houses in ohio and pennsylvania. what we find it is what is in the halfway house predicts how well they do in terms of

recidivism reduction. to employment in the committee, that is a big issue. when you have have warehouses' that offered more services that ascribe to the evidence base practice of that, you tend to get better numbers. there is in the rough ideas about what these practices are. the halfway houses or residential re-entry centers should target people who work moderate to high risk. we found many in the federal criteria, not neemeet at in which case you will not get as much bang for you buck. when the target moderate to high

as well as some of the traits, a slew of you're also more likely to get reductions in recidivism. people are able to find stable housing and make connections to the committee and increase the social ties. those are good indicators. so it depends. it depends what the quality is and upon how much services we provide. be a little cheap on the services. host: tom from maryland. caller: i worked in montgomery in the pre-land,

release center. we would help the people get jobs. assigned a personal counselor. they did some in-house life skills training. to pushemphasis was them out into the community. they and their loved ones were out in the committee and not within the pre release program. it was an incredible program. it was really good. i don't know if you heard of the montgomery county pre release program. it was run by the county and it still is.

you tend to get the people that behave in jail and have less chance of coming back. there have been some tremendous success stories from this program. you're taking federal inmates now to get to help with the cost. they bring in love money into the program from the federal program. guest: that is a good example in the local region. it is part of the montgomery county department of corrections. hey do contract with the feds with the state governments. that is a good example of a program that is in an

industrial, commercial area, so it is easy for people to get bus routes. the county went through a lot to get that in a well designed area. what types of services are offered? helpore that we can do to people as they go through these transitions, the better off we are. that is not necessarily the case. of thoseind of one indicators. if we want to reduce recidivism, we have to look at some of these other factors. host: a study in "the new york times" this morning. here is the story.

the halfway houses are supposed to save money more effectively than prisons do. host: i guess i will leave it there and throw it to you. what kind of impact does that have ? guest: a colleague of mine did a study in pennsylvania two or three years ago. the current secretary have spent some time rethinking the current issues. looking at the issue. we looked at what was going on

at halfway houses. it is a sorry state in most cases. we give people a place to sleep and food. has works is that science defined the techniques that we know that are effective. the corrections centers is staff turnover. they hire staff cheaply and they are not qualified in dealing with some of the issues of the zero offenders. they don't know how to deal with the psychological issues. we need to have skilled staff that can work on motivation and help people facilitate change. we do not train the staff.

let's drop theay baby with the half-hour house model. our most expensive costs are prisons. we put people away for a long pointed out of time. fromremoves them wander the committee -- that removes them wander from the community. the school of crime model you see in the movies. to be moreould we do effective? build our programs and some of these residential programs so that people who cannot adjust in the community can go to residential programs and get some of the help they need so they can be more productive.

from georgeaxman mason university. there was a study about what works and residential re-entry centers. among their concerns, they talked about record-keeping and client assessment and results of recidivism rates and call for better federal oversight of the centers. george is a democrat from new york. caller: the previous call about what worked in pennsylvania it applies in new york as well. mate. former in ma i experience the residential re- entry centers in which there is federal government support and county supported, and they do not work.

idea where we come term as inmates. you're not there to be rehabilitated but to be punished. to be effective, they need to look at what people experience in those places. posttraumatic stress system. that is a war zone. you have authoritative issues when you come out. well.o not get paid very they are undertrained. you have to start in the prison system. bring these people and connect with these prison systems so

they can see what they need. not just get them a job. they are going to be back in prison. host: george, thank you. i alluded to that in terms of the staffing of the halfway houses. prison does not stay in prison. it returns when people go back to the community. this is what we as a country need to come to terms with. we have some declines in the past two or three years. we have more people incarcerated per capita than any other industrialized country.

we have people coming back and we have their families who have also been hindered. we often ask is, how should we construct a prison warehouses', residential re-entry centers that contributes to these negative impacts? ofshould minimize the use incarceration for violent people and people who need to be removed from society. there are ample enough to keep our prisons going. we need to invest more in terms of what we are doing in the community. tenants that come from a theory and the notion is that we should offer people the

opportunity to really change. reengineered .robation sayystems one of the things we have to ask type ofs is, is this corrections system we want? the public and politicians will look at our system and they will basically say, that is to punish people. you cannot do it punishment and rehabilitation simultaneously very well. commitment ifonal we are interested in change and if we're interested in changing people and the community. .ost: this is from twitter

guest: it depends on the halfway house. the average is somewhere between 20%.nd of their cost, their daily cost. it varies considerably. host: stephanie on the republican line. caller: what i heard has been the about the quality of workers that are inside of the halfway houses. this is even beyond the halfway house. felon.rried to an ex- he is a good worker and works all the time. when he goes to apply for a

better job, there is always that question. that kind of marks him now for a better job. they stay in a low-income brackets. he never got in trouble in prison. never in a halfway house. how do you better yourself? god we go to church and stuff. a lot of guys would be enticed or back and say it doesn't pay to stay on the right track. there was talk about whether they could ask those questions on the applications. guest: you raise an important topic.

when does the slate get cleaned? when does the person who paid a price for the crime they committed, when julie white that slate clean? we have increased the amount of collateral consequences, including the loss of voting rights and things of that nature. idea that a criminologist about the concept of redemption, at what point of time that people have been out of prison could we have " erased their criminal record? that would move thus far along in terms of giving people chances. that is scarlet letter

people wear on their chest all the time once you have had a felony conviction. lots of states are thinking about what they are going to put on employment applications. there are some issues about being able to look up people's prison records and arrest records, especially through the credit reporting that make it very difficult for people to erase any thing, even if there was a long punta of time where there weren't any problems at all. this is part of the dialogue that we need to think through. how are we going to deal with this population of people who have been involved in the criminal justice system?

that is the best way to stop recidivism. we do not know where she lives. is that a common feeling? guest: a major issue that they face -- where to put the path warehouses? we have not grown the number of halfway houses. we could use more half lighthouses as a way of dealing with the population -- we could use more halfway houses. past, halfway houses were 15-20 peoplely. . they were houses.

now they can be 100, 150. 1500. jersey, some are that is not really a halfway house when you think about that. we have to be careful about the types of people. there are types of people that should be in different areas. host: we have a follow-up to that. can apply through the bureau of prisons. there is a series of qualifications. you can go on the federal website. all the contracts are for about 10 years at a time. part of it is stability of having enough slots.

michigan.is in hi, jim. caller: this is not a personal attack or anything. this is a question i have for comes on yourndn program and says they need more money. have the we don't money in our pockets. it's nice to go on and do all this research, but i didn't hear where you are suggesting the money comes from. place well, part of the the money can come from is reducing our incarceration rates. we spend a lot of money in prison.

that money could be transferred to committee corrections. more services provided, we could reduce the recidivism rate. there's a concept called justice reinvestment. a lot of states are looking at right now. you take it out of the prison system and move it into the community. we have around 2 million people in prison and jails in this country. 6 billion people on probation and parole. we reduce the intake to prison. .ost: this comes in on twitter and other states

are exploring not allow nonviolent offenders to go to prison. whether or not they would need a halfway house is questionable. there is a general principle that comes from science. the likelihood somebody will fail in the committee should be a determining factor of how much structure they need. to berobably did not need in halfway houses or residential re-entry centers. to be onably need probation with a system that uses some of these practices. host: a couple of other twe ets. host: danny in washington on the

republican line. caller: good morning. need to be inmates made aware they have committed a crime and not entitled to any kind of job. they have to earn their way. i do not want any halfway house in the area i live. we have a lot of the children here. theyey committed a crime, should do all the time. there shouldn't be any halfway house. host: do you know there any where you live? caller: there is one across the bridge. there is another about three blocks away.

i live on capitol hill. host: is there a database? guest: you can look them up. others,say to denny and it is easy for us to say people should do their time and come back to the community. when people are away from the community for a long punta of time, -- for a long period of time, it is pretty hard to come back. older. and children get how do we prepare people to come back after they have been removed? the types of folks you mentioned, those are the ones we

want to keep up on. , to talk about electronic monitoring. there are lots of techniques that we could use. usedrunk drivers, we could interlock systems on cars. we should look at the risks offer to the communities and target different ways to minimize those risks and helping the person regain their livelihood and productivity. without that, they are just going to go back. host: looking at the question of justice. guest: there is a large concern

our prisons are filled with people that are basically this advantage and have a lot of inequities in terms of damages in society. half the prison population did not graduate high school. getting people to finish high school should be a big concept in terms of changing the society and communities. working in some of these heavily disadvantaged communities to deal with incarceration. do we want something that can help people become more successful? thank you soxman, much for joining us today. that's all for "washington journal" this morning